Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[8][9][10] Income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is not uniform among the states: after-tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[11]

Diogenes:Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[8][9][10] Income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is not uniform among the states: after-tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[11]

JerseyTim:Diogenes: Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[8][9][10] Income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is not uniform among the states: after-tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[11]

Wait. So American Thinker just admitted that income inequality started right at the same time as Obama took office? So, that means, Bush left Obama a little present? Because, obviously, Obama didn't have enough time to effect policy on Day 1...

xanadian:Wait. So American Thinker just admitted that income inequality started right at the same time as Obama took office? So, that means, Bush left Obama a little present? Because, obviously, Obama didn't have enough time to effect policy on Day 1...

Kind of nice for American Potato to admit "but but but Bush!"

Everyone knows that while senator, Obama pushed legislation through congress that would have the effect of income inequality growth starting on Jan 20, 2009, so that it would look like it was actually Bush's fault.

JerseyTim:JerseyTim: Diogenes: Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[8][9][10] Income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is not uniform among the states: after-tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[11]

From those lying libs at Wikipedia.

Not so fast. Let's see what an unbiased source has to say.

Let's see what an unfetchable biased source has to say: http://www.conservapedia.com/Income_inequality

Love it! One line assertion whose source is a hit opinion piece by one of Coburn's buddies.

Diogenes:JerseyTim: JerseyTim: Diogenes: Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[8][9][10] Income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is not uniform among the states: after-tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[11]

From those lying libs at Wikipedia.

Not so fast. Let's see what an unbiased source has to say.

Let's see what an unfetchable biased source has to say: http://www.conservapedia.com/Income_inequality

Love it! One line assertion whose source is a hit opinion piece by one of Coburn's buddies.

Well I'm convinced!

The sad thing is, for a Conservapedia article, that one is rigorous and well-sourced.

For example, they like to use anti-evolution arguments that even other ID-believers have long abandoned.